CBS 60 Minutes II - The Man Who Knew

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Dari
Kofi Annan is a diplomat. So is Powell. So were the Foreign Ministers of the other 14 nations at the SC. In the end, its not what they say that matters. It's what they do.

As for what the US was doing at the SC, I thought the answer was obvious but if you want a more transparent answer, email Colin Powell at the State Department. And if you don't want to answer the question I asked you, then don't further this debate because you're dodging my questions.

Your position so flies in the face of reality, Dari, that I simply don't have the patience to deal with it. But feel free to think you've "won" - I just don't have the time or the inclination to play your ridiculous games. Besides, you've obviously spun everything the UN has ever said and every resolution passed to support your position, why should I bother trying to convince you otherwise? It's the blind leading the retarded, I guess.

 

[Dari]

This is a No Spin Zone, dammit.

Seriously, if you can't back up your accusations, then this debate is moot (and over). Nice chattin' with ya.

 

[chess9]

DM:

William James referred to it as "The Will to Believe."

Creation "Scientists" do it all the time.

But, we all do it at one time or another. Usually it's because we can't face down our mothers... or fathers. , Or, we are trying very hard to do exactly as we were were told NOT to do.

Dari, are you a teenager? Just curious.... ,

-Robert

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Dari - it's NOT up to the U.S. to enforce International Law! It's up to the UN and specifically the UN Security Council. END OF STORY. The US NEVER GOT authorization from the UN to go to war. The UN specifically said on numerous occasions that NO current or former UN Resolution authorized force against Iraq. You're spinning, just like Bush did when he walked away from the UNSC empty-handed.

Prove it or shut up (that the US never got authorization to go to war). And while you're proving it, don't forget to mention the 17 Article VII UN resolutions.

As for the US enforcing international law, as a part of the UN, we are oblidged to do so. Try to prove me wrong here as well.

Quote:

Security Council Authorized Use of Force

"There is only one legal basis for the use of force other than self-defense: Security Council directed or authorized use of force to restore or maintain international peace and security pursuant to its responsibilities under Chapter VII of the UN Charter.1 Article 42 of that chapter provides:

Should the Security Council consider that measures [not involving the use of force] provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.

It was under Chapter VII that in 1990 the Security Council by Resolution 678 authorized all "necessary means" to eject Iraq from Kuwait and to restore international peace and security in the area. Following the formal cease-fire recorded by Resolution 687 in 1991, there has been no Security Council resolution that has clearly and specifically authorized the use of force to enforce the terms of the cease-fire, including ending Iraq?s missile and chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons programs.

Such a resolution is required for renewed use of force. It is the Security Council that has assumed responsibility regarding Iraq, and it must be the Security Council that decides, unambiguously and specifically, that force is required for enforcement of its requirements. Past Security Council resolutions authorizing use of force employed language universally understood to do so, regarding Korea in 1950 (prior to General Assembly action, Security Council Resolution 83 recommended that UN member states provide "such assistance to the Republic of Korea as may be necessary to repel the armed attack and to restore international peace and security in the area"), and Kuwait, Somalia, Haiti, Rwanda, and Bosnia in the 1990s ("all necessary means" or "all measures necessary"). In all these instances, the Security Council responded to actual invasion, large-scale violence, or humanitarian emergency, not to potential threats.

Any claim that "material breach" of cease fire obligations by Iraq justifies use of force by the United States is unavailing. The Gulf War was a Security Council authorized action, not a state versus state conflict; accordingly, it is for the Security Council to determine whether there has been a material breach and whether such breach requires renewed use of force.

It is fundamental that the UN Charter, Article 2(3) and (4), gives priority to the peaceful settlement of disputes and the non-use of force. Article 2(4) barring the threat or use of force has been described by the International Court of Justice as a peremptory norm of international law, from which states cannot derogate. (Nicaragua v United States, [1986] ICJ Reports 14, at para. 190) Strained interpretations of Security Council resolutions, especially when opposed, as in the case of Iraq, by a majority of other Security Council members, cannot overcome those fundamental principles. Rather, given the values embedded in the Charter, the burden is on those who claim use of force has been authorized.2

Despite U.S. claims over the years that resolutions subsequent to Resolution 687 have provided the basis for U.S. use of force against Iraq, the Bush administration is now seeking a new resolution authorizing use of force should Iraq continue to fail to comply with Security Council requirements. Practically speaking, then, the Bush administration accepts that existing resolutions do not authorize use of force.

Conclusion

Under the UN Charter, there are only two circumstances in which the use of force is permissible: in collective or individual self-defense against an actual or imminent armed attack; and when the Security Council has directed or authorized use of force to maintain or restore international peace and security. Neither of those circumstances now exist. Absent one of them, U.S. use of force against Iraq is unlawful."

Unquote

The United Nations Charter and the use of force against Iraq

Now since the attack against Iraq is unlawful President Bush has broken the law of the United States and should consequently be impeached.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Dari
This is a No Spin Zone, dammit.

Seriously, if you can't back up your accusations, then this debate is moot (and over). Nice chattin' with ya.

That's great O'Neill but seriously, I did back up my claims, only you chose not to give a sh!t. That's fine too, I guess. Like I said, I don't have the energy to try to change anyone's mind. And I've certainly read enough of your posts around here to understand there's no point in it. Not an insult, so much as the truth.

 

[LunarRay]

Dari,
The UN is not a court. The UN is not a prosecutor either. On both counts, if you have or will allude to this fact you'd be correct. The UN is simply a body possessed with the power granted it by the member nations. The 'sanctions', if any, against the US for violation of its resolutions is a moot point. It or they would be vetoed by the US. The UN is powerless to enforce sanctions against one of the 'big five'. You'd be correct if you have or will allude to this situation as well. The most it can do is to state that there has not been a granting to the US and friends authority to invade Iraq. Of course The US and friends would disagree with this as well. So, you'd be right here as well. To wit: With out Security Counsel condemnation of the US actions the issue is moot. And it is moot!
There does exist the Haag and its World Court and all that but, I doubt they will hear any issues regarding the invasion. So there is no International body to determine illegality.
But, there is you and me and the rest of us who can both read and reason. If you reason without prejudice for or against the US you'd most likely find the US did not have authority to invade under the Article 51 scenario nor under the provisions of Resolution 1441. The best we can do is read the opinions of the legal minds who have opined on the subject. Those who have no bias cannot find the authority to invade contained in 1441 or prior resolutions. Those with bias argue both ways. How do we determine the absence of bias? We have to confine our selves to the folks who wrote the resolutions, The Blix's and other lawyers at the UN and those of impeccable character who would rather die than compromise on the rule of law.

So when you ask for proof of violation, I suggest you empty your jigger of bias and try to approach the issue as if you were the judge. I can't do that for you nor convince you that I can myself... and I do all the time. I'd argue in the US's favor if I could only find the phrase or phrases that give that authority... I just don't see it. I only question how others can see what is so clear to me to be absent.

 

[LunarRay]

GrGr,
Impeachment by the House for invasion under UN Article 51 provisions would require some proof that the condition (s) stated in the White House Resolution for authority to use Armed Forces, etc. back in October of '02 was perpetrated upon the American people by an impeachable official with knowledge the conditions did not exist. In this case, Bush is well insulated, I think, from the interpretive process of the Intel. Others who may have been over the edge are open to the process but, with a year to go before elections the best we could hope for is Congressional Hearings... chaired by Bush's party.. It will take a November election change in Congressional power for anything to occur along those lines.. IMO

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Dari
You guys are making statements as if they're true. Show me where the President lied and I'll recant. And also prove that our invasion of Iraq was against international law.

How convenient that you proudly refuse to read anything you may disagree with. Sure reduces the risk of anyone showing you anything.

 

[Bowfinger]

Bump for Genesys and anyone else misinformed by the Limbaughs and Coulters that spread disinformation as news.

 

[Bowfinger]

Bump for Shanti.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Bump for Shanti.

Bump for Bowfinger bumping his old dead threads

CkG

 

[replicator]

Will these pro-war people at least admit that the government lied to make it all happen?

It is clearly evident that the Bush administration deceived the people. Does the ends justify the means?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: replicator
Will these pro-war people at least admit that the government lied to make it all happen?

It is clearly evident that the Bush administration deceived the people. Does the ends justify the means?

Some have.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: replicator
Will these pro-war people at least admit that the government lied to make it all happen?

It is clearly evident that the Bush administration deceived the people. Does the ends justify the means?

I'm always mystified at how some people can completely dismiss multiple first-hand accounts like this. Even if you disagree with them, you have to admit they raise important questions about what happened.

 

[alpha366i]

This and other accounts have convinced me Bush have lied and he wont be getting my vote in the upcoming election.

 

[freegeeks]

Originally posted by: Gaard
Don't be angry with Dari for not reading the article. His mentor probably told him not to.

LOL

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: freegeeks

Originally posted by: Gaard
Don't be angry with Dari for not reading the article. His mentor probably told him not to.

LOL

Mentor or Sugar Daddy (or is it one in the same)

 

[Bowfinger]

Bump

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: Dari
Odd how you highlight the stuff that furthers your cause. At least ( I hope) you didn't edit anything out since I won't even bother reading it. If this guy wanted to save his beloved Saddam, he should've cried foul back in February.

I'd love to see you refute this, Dari. It looked like a complete and sound article, and I'd also be interested in hearing your qualifications to judge and interpret this data over Mr. Thielmann's.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Orsorum

Originally posted by: Dari
Odd how you highlight the stuff that furthers your cause. At least ( I hope) you didn't edit anything out since I won't even bother reading it. If this guy wanted to save his beloved Saddam, he should've cried foul back in February.

I'd love to see you refute this, Dari. It looked like a complete and sound article, and I'd also be interested in hearing your qualifications to judge and interpret this data over Mr. Thielmann's.

He refused to read it, so he can't refute it.

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
For those who missed 60 Minutes II last week, they had a fascinating interview with Greg Thielmann and other experts on WMD-related issues. Thielmann is an expert on Iraqi WMDs and a foreign-service officer for 25 years, most recently directing the Office of Strategic Proliferation and Military Affairs under Colin Powell. In short, he was the lead person analyzing WMD intelligence for Powell. Theilmann reports that key evidence in Powell's U.N. presentation was misrepresented.

The Man Who Knew

In the run-up to the war in Iraq, one moment seemed to be a turning point: the day Secretary of State Colin Powell went to the United Nations to make the case for the invasion.

Millions of people watched as he laid out the evidence and reached a damning conclusion -- that Saddam Hussein was in possession of weapons of mass destruction.

Correspondent Scott Pelley has an interview with Greg Thielmann, a former expert on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. Thielmann, a foreign-service officer for 25 years, now says that key evidence in the speech was misrepresented and the public was deceived.
____________________

"I had a couple of initial reactions. Then I had a more mature reaction," says Thielmann, commenting on Powell's presentation to the United Nations.

"I think my conclusion now is that it's probably one of the low points in his long, distinguished service to the nation."

Thielmann's last job at the State Department was director of the Office of Strategic Proliferation and Military Affairs, which was responsible for analyzing the Iraqi weapons threat for Secretary Powell. He and his staff had the highest security clearances, and everything ? whether it came into the CIA or the Defense Department ? came through his office.

Thielmann was admired at the State Department. One high-ranking official called him honorable, knowledgeable, and very experienced. Thielmann, too, had planned to retire just four months before Powell?s big moment at the U.N.

On Feb. 5, 2003, Secretary Powell presented evidence against Saddam to the U.N., and the speech represented a change in Powell?s thinking. Before 9/11, he said Saddam had "not developed any significant capability in weapons of mass destruction." But two years later, he warned that Saddam had stockpiled those very weapons.

"The gravity of this moment is matched by the gravity of the threat that Iraq?s weapons of mass destruction pose to the world," said Powell.

At the time of Powell's speech, Thielmann says that Iraq didn't pose an imminent threat to anyone: "I think it didn't even constitute an imminent threat to its neighbors at the time we went to war."

But Thielmann also says that he believes the decision to go to war was made first, and then the intelligence was interpreted to fit that conclusion. For example, he points to the evidence behind Powell?s charge that Iraq was importing aluminum tubes to use in a program to build nuclear weapons.

Powell said: ?Saddam Hussein is determined to get his hands on a nuclear bomb. He is so determined that he has made repeated covert attempts to acquire high-specification aluminum tubes from 11 different countries even after inspections resumed."

"This is one of the most disturbing parts of Secretary Powell's speech for us," says Thielmann.

Intelligence agents intercepted the tubes in 2001, and the CIA said they were parts for a centrifuge to enrich uranium - fuel for an atom bomb. But Thielmann wasn?t so sure. Experts at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, the scientists who enriched uranium for American bombs, advised that the tubes were all wrong for a bomb program. At about the same time, Thielmann?s office was working on another explanation. It turned out the tubes' dimensions perfectly matched an Iraqi conventional rocket.

"The aluminum was exactly, I think, what the Iraqis wanted for artillery," recalls Thielmann, who says he sent that word up to the Secretary of State months before.
____________________

Houston Wood was a consultant who worked on the Oak Ridge analysis of the tubes. He watched Powell?s speech, too.

"I guess I was angry, that?s the best way to describe my emotions. I was angry at that," says Wood, who is among the world?s authorities on uranium enrichment by centrifuge. He found the tubes couldn't be what the CIA thought they were. They were too heavy, three times too thick and certain to leak.

Months later, Thielmann reported to Secretary Powell's office that they were confident the tubes were not for a nuclear program. Then, about a year later, when the administration was building a case for war, the tubes were resurrected on the front page of The New York Times.

"I thought when I read that there must be some other tubes that people were talking about. I just was flabbergasted that people were still pushing that those might be centrifuges,? says Wood, who reached his conclusion back in 2001. "It didn?t make any sense to me."

The New York Times reported that senior administration officials insisted the tubes were for an atom-bomb program.

"Science was not pushing this forward. Scientists had made their determination their evaluation and now we didn?t know what was happening," says Wood.

In his U.N. speech, Secretary Powell acknowledged there was disagreement about the tubes, but he said most experts agreed with the nuclear theory.

"There is controversy about what these tubes are for. Most U.S. experts think they are intended to serve as rotors in centrifuges used to enrich uranium," said Powell.

"Most experts are located at Oak Ridge and that was not the position there," says Wood, who claims he doesn?t know anyone in academia or foreign government who would disagree with his appraisal. "I don?t know a single one anywhere."
____________________

Thielmann says the nuclear case was filled with half-truths. So why would the Secretary take the information that Thielmann's intelligence bureau had developed and turn it on its head?

"I can only assume that he was doing it to loyally support the President of the United States and build the strongest possible case for arguing that there was no alternative to the use of military force," says Thielmann.

That was a case the president himself was making only eight days before Secretary Powell's speech. It was a State of the Union address that turned out to be too strong: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear-weapons production."

After the war, the White House said the African uranium claim was false and shouldn't have been in the address. But at the time, it was part of a campaign that painted the intelligence as irrefutable.

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us," said Cheney.

But if there was no doubt in public, Thielmann says there was plenty of doubt in the intelligence community. He says the administration took murky information out of the gray area and made it black and white.

Powell said: "My colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we are giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence."

Solid intelligence, Powell said, that proved Saddam had amassed chemical and biological weapons: "Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical-weapons agent. That?s enough to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets."

He also said part of the stockpile was clearly in these bunkers: "The four that are in red squares represent active chemical munitions bunkers. How do I know that, how can I say that? Let me give you a closer look."

Up close, Powell said you could see a truck for cleaning up chemical spills, a signature for a chemical bunker: "It?s a decontamination vehicle in case something goes wrong."

But Thielmann disagreed with Powell's statement: "My understanding is that these particular vehicles were simply fire trucks. You cannot really describe as being a unique signature."
____________________

Satellite photos were also notoriously misleading, according to Steve Allinson, a U.N. inspector in Iraq in the months leading up to war.

Was there ever a time when American satellite intelligence provided Allinson with something that was truly useful?

"No. No, not to me. Not on inspections that I participated in," says Allinson, whose team was sent to find decontamination vehicles that turned out to be fire trucks.

Another time, a satellite spotted what they thought were trucks used for biological weapons.

"We were told we were going to the site to look for refrigerated trucks specifically linked to biological agents,? says Allinson. ?We found 7 or 8 of them I think in total. And they had cobwebs in them. Some samples were taken and nothing was found."

Allinson watched Powell's speech in Iraq with a dozen U.N. inspectors. There was great anticipation in the room. Like waiting for the Super Bowl, they always suspected the U.S. was holding back its most damning evidence for this moment.

What was the reaction among the inspectors as they watched the speech?

"Various people would laugh at various times because the information he was presenting was just, you know, didn't mean anything, had no meaning," says Allinson.

And what did he and the other inspectors say when Secretary Powell finished the speech?

"They have nothing," says Allinson.
____________________

If Allinson doubted the satellite evidence, Thielmann watched with worry as Secretary Powell told the Security Council that human intelligence provided conclusive proof.

Thielmann says that many of the human sources were defectors who came forward with an ax to grind. But how reliable was the defector information they received?

"I guess I would say, frequently we got bad information," says Thielmann.

Some of it came from defectors supplied by the Iraqi National Congress, the leading exile group headed by Ahmed Chalabi.

"You had the Iraqi National Congress with a clear motive for presenting the worst possible picture of what was happening in Iraq to the American government," says Thielmann.

That may have been the case with Adnan Sayeed Haideiri, whose information was provided by the Iraqi National Congress to the U.S. Government and The New York Times. He appeared on CBS News.

Haideiri said he was a civil engineer and claimed to have visited many secret weapon-production sites. The government thought he was so valuable they put him in a witness protection program. The White House listed him first in its Web page on Iraqi weapons.

"He was basically an epoxy painter," says David Albright, a physicist who has investigated defectors for his work with the U.N.

Albright studied a transcript of Haideiri's claims: "If you read a transcript of an interview that he went through, he has no knowledge of chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons."

What did they find from Haideri's information? Nothing, says Albright.
____________________

But there was a good deal more in Secretary Powell's speech that bothered the analysts. Powell claimed Saddam still had a few dozen Scud missiles.

"I wondered what he was talking about," says Thielmann. "We did not have evidence that the Iraqis had those missiles, pure and simple."

Powell warned that empty chemical warheads found recently by the U.N. could be the tip of the iceberg. "They were shells left over from the Gulf War. Or prior to the Gulf War, from their past programs," says Allinson.

Powell, however, made several points that turned out to be right. Among them, he was right when he said Iraqi labs were removing computer hard drives; he was right that Iraq had drawings for a new long-range missile; and he was right about Saddam's murder of thousands of Iraqi citizens.

But, an interim report by coalition inspectors says that so far, there is no evidence of a uranium enrichment program, no chemical weapons, no biological weapons, and no Scud missiles.

The State Department told 60 Minutes II that Secretary Powell would not be available for an interview. But this month, he said the jury on Iraq is still out: "So I think one has to look at the whole report. Have we found a factory or a plant or a warehouse full of chemical rounds? No, not yet but there is much more work to be done."

Powell added that Iraq was a danger to the world, but the people could judge how clear and present a danger it was.

As for Greg Thielmann, he told 60 Minutes II that he's a reluctant witness. His decision to speak developed over time, and he says the president's address worried him because he knew the African uranium story was false. He said he watched Secretary Powell?s speech with disappointment because, up until then, he had seen Powell bringing what he called "reason" to the administration's inner circle.

Today, Thielmann believes the decision to go to war was made -- and the intelligence was interpreted to fit that conclusion.

"There?s plenty of blame to go around. The main problem was that the senior administration officials have what I call faith-based intelligence. They knew what they wanted the intelligence to show," says Thielmann.

"They were really blind and deaf to any kind of countervailing information the intelligence community would produce. I would assign some blame to the intelligence community, and most of the blame to the senior administration officials."

The administration wants to spend several hundred million dollars more to continue the search for evidence.
____________________

After turning down repeated requests for an interview by 60 Minutes II, Colin Powell spoke to the BBC Wednesday afternoon about Thielmann's claim that he misinformed the nation during his February U.N. speech.

"That's nonsense. I don't think I used the word 'imminent' in my presentation on the 5th of February. I presented, on the 5th of February not something I pulled out of the air. I presented the considered judgment of the intelligence community of the United States of America -- the coordinated judgment of the intelligence community of the United States of America," said Powell, according to a transcript of the interview released by the State Department.

"The investigation continues. There is an individual, I guess, who is going on a television show to say I misled the American people. I don't mislead the American people and I never would. I presented the best information that our intelligence community had to offer."

When the BBC interviewer pointed out that Thielmann was considered the leading expert for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction in his department, Powell replied: "I have many experts in my department, and there are many differences of opinion, among any group of experts. And it's quite easy for a television program to get this individual and then they complain. But to try to turn it around and say that 'Secretary Powell made this all up and presented it, knowing it was false,' is simply inaccurate."

Powell again refuted the charges in an Oct. 16 interview with National Public Radio.

"It wasn't hyped. It wasn't overblown," said Powell, in a transcript released by the State Department. "I would not do that to the American people, nor would I do that before the Security Council, as a representative of the American people and of the President of the United States."

This is espeically interesting -- and damning -- since CBS is the most conservative of the major broadcast networks (except Faux "News", of course). CBS has more information and video available on their site. It's more compelling evidence the Bush-lite administration lied to America to sell their invasion of Iraq.

This is a great story. Look how Powell's story is changing.

 

[chess9]

Powell sold his soul to the devil. He also has ended his political career.

Look at the thread about McNamara who did the exact same thing. They are nothing but political whores.

This war has blown up in their faces; they are standing there with their eyes drooping down out of their sockets and their skin blown off and blood everywhere and what do they say? "We did the right thing and we have won the war."

How anyone can support this nonsense is utterly beyond my comprehension. It is sheer madness....


-Robert

 

[Bowfinger]

Thought this deserved a bump to compare and contrast with Tenet's comments.

Edit: here are links to related articles/threads:
Truthout: Interview: 27-Year CIA Veteran by Will Pitt
AT P&N: An Excellent Article on WMD
AT P&N: CIA Analyst: 'No President has lied so baldly and so often and so demonstrably'
AT P&N: And the Spooks DID try to Tell Bush and His Advisors . . .

 

[calbear2000]

Yesterday was the anniversary of Powell's case for war to the UN. 60 Minutes II appropriately replayed this article with some additional commentary Tuesday, and it was an absolute blow to Powell's integrity and crediblity. I remember many being convinced by Powell's presentation this time last year...

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: calbear2000
Yesterday was the anniversary of Powell's case for war to the UN. 60 Minutes II appropriately replayed this article with some additional commentary Tuesday, and it was an absolute blow to Powell's integrity and crediblity. I remember many being convinced by Powell's presentation this time last year...

Yep, a lot of folks grew gills.

Collin Powell changed my mind.